A Medford man issued a citation last year for pedaling outside of a bike lane to avoid debris says a judge has sided with the officer who pulled him over, saying he should have steered his bike around the rocks and sticks without leaving the bike lane.

“I get flats when I ride over there,” Smith tells Ofc. MacLennan in the video, which was captured by the officer’s dashboard camera. “I got two flats riding (unclear) last week.”

“That doesn’t cut it,” Ofc. MacLennan replied. “These? No. You have broken glass, you have rocks, then okay. But you cannot be riding down the center line here, down the white line, into the traffic lane. This is not sufficient enough. This is not debris that’s going to be causing a problem.”

“The truck in front of me kind of went around you,” Ofc. MacLennan went on. “Both of the cars that were in front of me went out and around you.”

Just to make sure I’m reading it correctly, avoiding debris like glass is acceptable, but rocks and sticks are not?

I wonder how this relates to Portland-area debris we see. I’m thinking the heavy layer of pebbles and crud in bike lanes after a long winter of tire chains. Or, in a more localized example, the bridge that goes east off of North Rivergate/North Lombard near Kelley Point (http://goo.gl/2yagyv).

That bridge has a normal bike line, but it’s always full of awful rock debris, so I usually find myself leaning a bit off the line if it’s clear and truck-free. Does the size of the debris matter?

This case makes the officer and the judge look (almost) unbelievably petty and mean-spirited. Does the officer sit around and wait for cars to cross into the bike lane when going around a curve and write them a ticket for operating their vehicles in the bike lane?

no, it makes it look like he’s doing his job, enforcing the law and trying to prevent behavior that needlessly heightens the danger for all road users. the officer states “if you have broken glass, you have rocks, then okay. this doesn’t cut it” the video shows the bike lane conditions pretty clearly. the officer is fairly polite about the whole thing and refuses to be drawn into an argument as well. wonder why some drivers have so much animosity towards cyclists? it’s because of stuff like this. the cyclist that passed them while the guy was getting a ticket didn’t seem to have a problem riding in the bike lane & i wouldn’t either.

Also from the vid audio, fairly clear suggestion that the officer didn’t just up and impulsively issue the citation. He apparently had been watching Smith ride for an extended period of time while he was stopping other road users. In other words, he had a longer opportunity to observe the manner of Smith’s use of the road, than do people only viewing the vid.

A more interesting (but probably no more effective) method to challenge the citation would be challenge the officers qualifications to judge the safety of the bike lane and part of that quaetioning would be how many citations has he issued for cars crossing over into the bike lane. I would be surprized if the officer has any expereince or training in bike lane safety.

The citation was obvious harasment since they don’t issue tickets to motorists crossing into the bike lane.

Interpretation is a fundamental part of any law. Sometimes, for laws to be applied fairly and responsibly, quite a lot needs to be known about the specific circumstances of given situations in which they come into play. I don’t think the snippet of the police officer’s video of Smith on his bike and conversation on it between them during the traffic stop, is sufficient to determine whether or not he was truly in violation of the law.

A transcript of the full exchange between Smith and the judge and the officer in court, could possibly give more insight on whether or not he was truly in violation. Also, what additional information was presented, photos, etc, about the debris in the bike lane, or lack of it.

Sorry, but I don’t agree it’s a bad idea to have ORS 814.420 detailing use of the road by people traveling by bike. Eliminating this law because people don’t well understand use of the road by people traveling by bike, wouldn’t likely contribute to a better road use environment.

It seems that even cops, judges, and lawyers don’t understand the meaning of this law, so how is it any good? A law that no one understands (except you, of course) is as good as no law at all. But worse, a law that relies entirely on the whims of police officers to determine its meaning is as good as handing cops a license to harass cyclists. Again, not that they can usually be bothered to engage in such harassment, but disinterest on the part of cops is the only thing preventing it when the “law” allows arbitrary stopping and citing of any cyclist outside a bike lane.

Not enforcing a law is not evidence of understanding it. But if we ignore that, do you think this was this an instance of an officer understanding or not understanding the law? Do you think Mr. Smith understood or did not understand the law?

I know, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the law was correctly applied or not. So how about if I ask again what benefit the law has for cyclists? Did the application of this law benefit Mr. Smith? Do you think the officer cited Smith out of concern for his safety? Out of concern for the safety of the drivers who were “forced” to go out around Mr. Smith?

“…do you think this was this an instance of an officer understanding or not understanding the law? Do you think Mr. Smith understood or did not understand the law?

I know, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the law was correctly applied or not. …” El Biciclero

My familiarity of the story coming exclusively by way of bikeportland stories about it, and comments to those stories, I can’t be certain of either Smith’s or the officers understanding of the law, or that of the judge that ruled on the citation.

Not sure whether it was to you or some other person’s question about why I feel ORS 814.420 is basically a good law and of benefit to all road users, but I have detailed those reasons in past. If people actually read the law, making efforts to understand it, I think those reasons would be self evident.

My message to the mayor and council members indicated that in past years, we’ve made a point of stopping in Ashland on our I-5 road trips but won’t be doing so in the future now that Ashland is seeking to be anti-bike.

“Smith, who represented himself, received a fine of $110 for failure to use a bike lane.”

While his legal fees would surly have exceed the potential fine, a qualified attorney might have been able to sway the judge and challenge the ability of the Ashland police officer to determine safe bike lane conditions.

Although I am very disappointed at what happened here; to be frank with you; I am not surprised.

I have had at least three people cry on my shoulder regarding the wierdities of Ashland’s culture. Plus the story we had here on this forum about the troubles that our own Sprockets had while performing there.

I had a three hour conversation with a refugee from Ashland (who now lives in Beaverton). After that conversation, I almost could not sleep.

It seems that there is an interesting psychological sludge going on down there. They have a lot of expats from California who came in during the 90′s at about the same time that the Rodney King riots broke out in Los Angeles.

It seems that these so-called arm-chair liberals were suffering from black-flight syndrome and wanted a cozy little enclave of their own. So, they came up and slowly took over Ashland and kind of pushed the long-time residents (the indigenous folks) out of power and onto the fringes.

Ashland is a very white armchair ‘liberal’ enclave that wants to paint a picture to attract the Shakespeare tourists. But in reality, they chase out anyone and anything that threatens their nice cozy little home.

I am a little torqued off right now because Dr. Norman Paul, my childhood psychiatrist passed away a few years ago. I would have loved to have him do an analysis of Ashland’s culture and hear what he says of it especially with his experience in phychiatry.

First thought “Does the bike guy really need to be riding in the middle of the lane? Could move to the right a bit. And hes really going fast. Look, hes passing the other bike guy who is biking in the lane, and if he can do it, anyone can”

And then I realized it was the police video. I cannot believe the citation. If theres an appeal process, I hope he appeals. Id send a donation to help cover any fees.

Whether a bike has flat resistant tires or not, rocks, sticks, glass, and whatever other junk that gets swept into the bike lane by passing motor vehicles, are still hazards. Oregon law does not hold people traveling by bike in violation of the law for leaving the bike lane to travel in a comparatively debris free main lane to avoid hazards.

“”Oregon law does not hold people traveling by bike in violation of the law for leaving the bike lane to travel in a comparatively debris free main lane to avoid hazards.”

Well, apparently it does.” El Biciclero

It, or at least, the written law doesn’t. If you read the 814.420, and .430, they do not preclude people traveling by bike from taking the main lane from bike lanes or otherwise, the far right side of the road, to avoid “…hazards…”.

What happened in Dallas Smith’s situation, that brought him to be cited and fined for violation of 814.420? A number of things could have contributed to that citation standing in court. Unfortunately for Smith, he’s got no witnesses aside from the police officer and the police video. So any questions about of the manner in which he was riding down the road, rely heavily on the words of those two people and what’s shown in the vid.

What the writers of 814.420 considered “…other hazards…” for bicycle travel to consist of, is another important point of the law that must be understood. In addition to the people living by it, people administering the law, are obliged to understand what such things specific words refer to in any given law.

From the very brief recap via Smith’s comment, of what the judge said in court, it’s hard to be certain whether the judge thought about what in this law, “…other hazards…” refers to, but it seems she may have. It seems she didn’t contradict Smith’s claim that there was debris in the bike lane, but simply explained to him that the bike lane was big enough that he should have been able to go around the debris while staying in the bike lane.

I sometimes ride the white line of bike lanes…especially in the spring because cars tend to travel over the white line and clear winter debris off of them. Plus a lot of them are raised a little above the black top surface and that seems to help keep little chards of glass off the white line. Most of the flats I’ve gotten come from these little tiny pieces of glass or wires that are impossible to see. When I watched the video, it appears that is what was going on here…staying on or just out side the white line and clear of debris. He wasn’t holding back traffic. He wasn’t swerving around. He was just traveling down the road in a clearer/cleaner line of travel…creating no safety issues what so ever. The police officer and the judge must have a different agenda than concerns over safety. Lame.

I ride out to MHCC every weekend … STARK is still full of the pea gravel from the ice storm. They’ve just pushed it further right. GLASS ? Have had more flats in Gresham than anywhere else.
Coming back west on Burnside hill , the storm grates , branches and dead critters in the bike lane force me out into car areas. But I do stop just after the light (223rd ?) and wait for a RED so that there is no traffic behind me.

El Biciclero
It seems that even cops, judges, and lawyers don’t understand the meaning of this law, so how is it any good? A law that no one understands (except you, of course) is as good as no law at all. But worse, a law that relies entirely on the whims of police officers to determine its meaning is as good as handing cops a license to harass cyclists.

Or as our esteemed President does … if the authorities disagree with a law , just ignore or don’t enforce it.

I knew at some point it would be Obama’s fault! Back to the issue: A good cop knows which laws are worth enforcing or not. He could’ve just used some discretion and expressed to Mr. Smith his concern about safety ( if that was really his issue) instead of writing a citation for a murky at best violation.

so if I move into the lane to avoid him blocking lane with his body and car, is that a ticket too? oh what if I crash.. ahh I see the rider is far right ;) warning would be the best for safety and concern not mil cop.